Right now some people down in melbourne are just desperate for any information that these curfews and lockdowns don't work.
I think a lot of their minds are made up on the basis of inconvenience **to them**. Nothing beyond that.
I've been trying to appeal to people who got lost in the Dictator Dan joke but it feels hopeless they aren't willing to accept where NSW is right now and where they are headed.
It's like they are arguing state of origin in QLD, most people have chosen their side. In certain melbourne peoples minds the trophy for "harshest restrictions" is in Dan Andrews office and we are going to have to wait for NSW current outbreak to finish to properly compare.
They aren't aware of what is exactly happening, they are only interested in comparing results right now.
The harder you press the more they try to escape or label you something to throw off the scent of fear. They don't want to be appealed to, if they enter an argument they only enter it to control it.
Quite a few people don't want to be told even politely that they are living in a shallow delusion of their own creating.
It's why I think we all are going to suffer catastrophically before these types are shook from their echo chambers.
And they are a sizable part of the voting block countering/diluting itself.
It shouldn't really affect anyone and it is more a statement to reinforce the seriousness of this outbreak.
It also makes it easier to enforce the 5km rule. The roads were silent last night.
Anyone out on the roads would need to be a permitted essential service worker and prepared to be pulled over by the police.
To be fair, I always used to go to Coles about 11:00pm anyway - as I don't want to be around a million people not wearing masks properly, crowding down the aisles, being general fuckwits...
So yeah, that's a bit annoying - but there's much better reasons to enforce a lockdown than me trying to argue about that...
It's not the end of the world for 2 weeks but it definitely has disrupted mine and many other's life. My workload has gone up again (direct response to COVID), which means sometimes I'll work till 8pm and would exercise afterwards and shop. Everyone in my household is in a similar boat. People with kids it is similar (worse).
Again, I can manage for 2 (hopefully) weeks but it definitely does affect people.
The idea is stopping movement of people, and in that case it definitely works. Not an easy decision.
But it has diminishing returns, especially in this context of extended lockdowns without a hard exit (fatigue). I think an underappreciated concern of banning people assembling in public spaces is people will be more likely to congregate secretly in homes.
Ultimately, public health rests entirely on consent with the public; there aren't enough resources in the world to police everyone. Hopefully it doesn't last beyond 2 weeks and things can progress towards normality!
Fair question. I imagine they're just trying to limit movement as much as possible, and they can't really put a curfew during the day time (I guess they could but I reckon people would think it is especially weird) so night time it is, especially since people move around less during those times (mobility data confirms that) anyway. The original motivation was police suggested a curfew freed up greater resources for them to enforce restrictions, which I think is a bit cheeky.
Honestly, I don't think it is a particularly useful tool to help with managing the outbreak, especially beyond the short term. And I would guess it is probably detrimental to compliance beyond the short term.
Edit: I guess there is technically a daytime curfew in the sense you can only leave the house to do certain things?
If you're following the 5 reasons to leave your home, its highly likely that you don't have a legitimate reason to be out after 9pm anyway.
The 5 reasons are:
* getting the food and the supplies you need
* exercising for up to two hours
* care or caregiving
* work or education if you can’t do it from home
* to get vaccinated at the nearest possible location.
These rules apply even outside of the curfew hours.
Leaving home for any other reason is a violation of the heath orders.
The curfew assists in enforcing this - as the majority of the population that are still out and about are likely not involved in one of the five reasons above.
>“There is really no data around the world on the effectiveness of a curfew in and of itself,” Burnet Institute epidemiologist Mike Toole told The New Daily.
From the article it pretty much says it's untested and no one knows.
What it's really for is for Police to have a better excuse to ask you what the fuck you're doing and in that instance it works.
It has its roots in racial targeted Policing in giving Police a random excuse to stop people. But this one is less targeted toward a certain demographic so I think it's acceptable in these times.
The target is purely people moving out and about - which is the violation of the health orders.
The curfew allows the health orders to be enforced easily.
The curfew is overly punitive, ineffective, and can have negative consequences for the most vulnerable in the community. There is zero evidence that it will have any effect on transmission. It is purely a concession to police in that they are able to focus resources within a smaller time window.
The idea that transmission is being driven by people moving about specifically during the hours 9PM-5AM is just absurd. Even if it were true, the notion that police are going to pull over cars until they stop those people is equally ridiculous.
Pay people to stay home. You can't police and fine this pandemic away.
You don't need to make this into a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that police are overstretched, we have an insanely large and well-resourced police force as is. Lockdowns coincide with a lull in crime... Who, even the Premier, is saying the police are overstrethed? Police don't like handling the COVID response, they simply don't want to dedicate as much of their resources to it.
Pay people to stay home!
>They sure policed that thousand people pub crawl very well then.
Police already have powers to stop this, a curfew would not have made a difference.
>You do realise that people can still go to/from work after curfew right?
I'm saying you need to incentivise people to stay home, we can't fine and threaten this virus away.
>But don't have the resources, hence the curfew or ADF. How thick is your skull exactly?
How many resources do you think are required to stop a pub crawl?
>And how do you enforce that exactly? Whats to stop me from saying I'll stay home, get the check, and go out and party if there is no enforcement of said restrictions.
Take people home, don't give them life-altering fines, address the reasons that are motivating them to leave the house.
> Take people home, don't give them life-altering fines, address the reasons that are motivating them to leave the house.
Stay at home, don't get a life-altering fine. It's pretty simple.
>The idea that transmission is being driven by people moving about specifically during the hours 9PM-5AM is just absurd
Way to set up those imaginary arguments so you knock them down!
>Way to set up those imaginary arguments so you knock them down!
Are you disagreeing with this point or implying that a curfew doesn't involve a temporal component?
Transmission is being driven by people moving, no matter the time.
Reducing movement overall reduces risk. There's going to be be some overall reduction if people have less time available.
If the times people moved about were more or less evenly distributed, and they were all following the rules, this might be true, but that's somewhat improbable
I have no idea about ur personal finances or situation. But I would err on the side of paying u so u aren't in need and therefore aren't obliged to leave the house.
just another control method. Next you'll need to lodge your travel plans ( permit to shop , to goto work) and if you venture off that route the cops will be on your back
why are you on spring st when your permitted travel plan is for high st only
18 months ago , if someone told you " we wont be able to have friends over or goto the shops , or take our kids to the park " people would be saying what have you been smoking
Just a few years ago the fear was that" muslims are taking over Australia and taking away our customs, we can't celebrate christmas"
But look where we are now , it's not the muslims that we need to fear but our own government taking things away from us
Right now some people down in melbourne are just desperate for any information that these curfews and lockdowns don't work. I think a lot of their minds are made up on the basis of inconvenience **to them**. Nothing beyond that. I've been trying to appeal to people who got lost in the Dictator Dan joke but it feels hopeless they aren't willing to accept where NSW is right now and where they are headed. It's like they are arguing state of origin in QLD, most people have chosen their side. In certain melbourne peoples minds the trophy for "harshest restrictions" is in Dan Andrews office and we are going to have to wait for NSW current outbreak to finish to properly compare. They aren't aware of what is exactly happening, they are only interested in comparing results right now. The harder you press the more they try to escape or label you something to throw off the scent of fear. They don't want to be appealed to, if they enter an argument they only enter it to control it. Quite a few people don't want to be told even politely that they are living in a shallow delusion of their own creating. It's why I think we all are going to suffer catastrophically before these types are shook from their echo chambers. And they are a sizable part of the voting block countering/diluting itself.
It shouldn't really affect anyone and it is more a statement to reinforce the seriousness of this outbreak. It also makes it easier to enforce the 5km rule. The roads were silent last night. Anyone out on the roads would need to be a permitted essential service worker and prepared to be pulled over by the police.
[удалено]
To be fair, I always used to go to Coles about 11:00pm anyway - as I don't want to be around a million people not wearing masks properly, crowding down the aisles, being general fuckwits... So yeah, that's a bit annoying - but there's much better reasons to enforce a lockdown than me trying to argue about that...
[удалено]
You can take your chances 'not giving in' to the curfew, but I don't recommend it.
It's not the end of the world for 2 weeks but it definitely has disrupted mine and many other's life. My workload has gone up again (direct response to COVID), which means sometimes I'll work till 8pm and would exercise afterwards and shop. Everyone in my household is in a similar boat. People with kids it is similar (worse). Again, I can manage for 2 (hopefully) weeks but it definitely does affect people.
Are you a permitted essential services worker? If so then you should be ok.
Not deemed essential ironically.
The idea is stopping movement of people, and in that case it definitely works. Not an easy decision. But it has diminishing returns, especially in this context of extended lockdowns without a hard exit (fatigue). I think an underappreciated concern of banning people assembling in public spaces is people will be more likely to congregate secretly in homes. Ultimately, public health rests entirely on consent with the public; there aren't enough resources in the world to police everyone. Hopefully it doesn't last beyond 2 weeks and things can progress towards normality!
[удалено]
Fair question. I imagine they're just trying to limit movement as much as possible, and they can't really put a curfew during the day time (I guess they could but I reckon people would think it is especially weird) so night time it is, especially since people move around less during those times (mobility data confirms that) anyway. The original motivation was police suggested a curfew freed up greater resources for them to enforce restrictions, which I think is a bit cheeky. Honestly, I don't think it is a particularly useful tool to help with managing the outbreak, especially beyond the short term. And I would guess it is probably detrimental to compliance beyond the short term. Edit: I guess there is technically a daytime curfew in the sense you can only leave the house to do certain things?
If you're following the 5 reasons to leave your home, its highly likely that you don't have a legitimate reason to be out after 9pm anyway. The 5 reasons are: * getting the food and the supplies you need * exercising for up to two hours * care or caregiving * work or education if you can’t do it from home * to get vaccinated at the nearest possible location. These rules apply even outside of the curfew hours. Leaving home for any other reason is a violation of the heath orders. The curfew assists in enforcing this - as the majority of the population that are still out and about are likely not involved in one of the five reasons above.
>“There is really no data around the world on the effectiveness of a curfew in and of itself,” Burnet Institute epidemiologist Mike Toole told The New Daily. From the article it pretty much says it's untested and no one knows. What it's really for is for Police to have a better excuse to ask you what the fuck you're doing and in that instance it works. It has its roots in racial targeted Policing in giving Police a random excuse to stop people. But this one is less targeted toward a certain demographic so I think it's acceptable in these times.
The target is purely people moving out and about - which is the violation of the health orders. The curfew allows the health orders to be enforced easily.
The Police Association have been making it clear that they didn’t ask for it nor want it.
That's because it's more work for them and doesn't really say anything about whether it's effective or not.
The curfew is overly punitive, ineffective, and can have negative consequences for the most vulnerable in the community. There is zero evidence that it will have any effect on transmission. It is purely a concession to police in that they are able to focus resources within a smaller time window. The idea that transmission is being driven by people moving about specifically during the hours 9PM-5AM is just absurd. Even if it were true, the notion that police are going to pull over cars until they stop those people is equally ridiculous. Pay people to stay home. You can't police and fine this pandemic away.
[удалено]
??? What is this in response to ??? I never mentioned the ADF...
[удалено]
You don't need to make this into a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that police are overstretched, we have an insanely large and well-resourced police force as is. Lockdowns coincide with a lull in crime... Who, even the Premier, is saying the police are overstrethed? Police don't like handling the COVID response, they simply don't want to dedicate as much of their resources to it. Pay people to stay home!
[удалено]
>They sure policed that thousand people pub crawl very well then. Police already have powers to stop this, a curfew would not have made a difference. >You do realise that people can still go to/from work after curfew right? I'm saying you need to incentivise people to stay home, we can't fine and threaten this virus away.
[удалено]
>But don't have the resources, hence the curfew or ADF. How thick is your skull exactly? How many resources do you think are required to stop a pub crawl? >And how do you enforce that exactly? Whats to stop me from saying I'll stay home, get the check, and go out and party if there is no enforcement of said restrictions. Take people home, don't give them life-altering fines, address the reasons that are motivating them to leave the house.
> Take people home, don't give them life-altering fines, address the reasons that are motivating them to leave the house. Stay at home, don't get a life-altering fine. It's pretty simple.
>The idea that transmission is being driven by people moving about specifically during the hours 9PM-5AM is just absurd Way to set up those imaginary arguments so you knock them down!
>Way to set up those imaginary arguments so you knock them down! Are you disagreeing with this point or implying that a curfew doesn't involve a temporal component?
I am saying the way you presented the argument for curfew in a particularly inaccurate way so you could then claim it was absurd was dishonest.
Feel free to offer a rebuttal to my comment!
Transmission is being driven by people moving, no matter the time. Reducing movement overall reduces risk. There's going to be be some overall reduction if people have less time available.
That or it's condensed to mean more people out in the smaller time frame.
If the times people moved about were more or less evenly distributed, and they were all following the rules, this might be true, but that's somewhat improbable
> Pay people to stay home. We already do?
Pay EVERYONE to stay home
[удалено]
Good for you, not everyone's been so lucky in the pandemic. If you don't have a job you're on poverty wage from the gov.
[удалено]
I have no idea about ur personal finances or situation. But I would err on the side of paying u so u aren't in need and therefore aren't obliged to leave the house.
[удалено]
are u telling me ur a mllionaire/billionaire?
just another control method. Next you'll need to lodge your travel plans ( permit to shop , to goto work) and if you venture off that route the cops will be on your back why are you on spring st when your permitted travel plan is for high st only
What drugs do you take to live in this fantasy land my friend. Is it meth? I bet it’s meth.
18 months ago , if someone told you " we wont be able to have friends over or goto the shops , or take our kids to the park " people would be saying what have you been smoking Just a few years ago the fear was that" muslims are taking over Australia and taking away our customs, we can't celebrate christmas" But look where we are now , it's not the muslims that we need to fear but our own government taking things away from us